Slashdot Mirror

https://www.campaignmoney.com/...

Either that or he just thinks his campaign contributions are best placed with them.

120 pages of microsoft political contributions..... https://www.campaignmoney.com/... and with a snazzier interface / less data https://www.opensecrets.org/or...

Wow you think Tim Cook is a Republican? And I thought Steve Jobs reality distortion field was strong. Take out Mike Assad donating to himself, and the overwhelming number and dollar amout swings way left. Apple Affiliated Donations

As long as we're being pedantic, the current chair was reappointed by Obama, after she was appointed by Bush. She donated to McCain, Romney, and the republican party. http://www.campaignmoney.com/p...

So let's just call it even.

CPB is required, by law, to be strictly objective, and has internal reviews to ensure objectivity. That is a better deal than you will get from Fox, MSNBC, WSJ, or NYT.

You are right that CPB != NPR, but they are tightly bound, and the exact relationship is complex. Regardless, there are plenty of conservatives in my city who listen to NPR and donate to local stations. The attempts to defund CPB and NPR have been defeated through bipartisan efforts.

I think if you actually listened to NPR, you would be surprised at how neutral and accurate the reporting is, and you would notice how the liberal slant of, say, salon.com is *not* present.

Sorry to burst your bubble but campaign contributions from these schmucks isn't something you can make partisan no matter how hard you try. The MPAA for example makes contributions to numerous politicians, both democrat and republican. You can see a glimpse into how they divide it up from the records from their own small PAC. Note that this is just donation's organized through that committee, not personal donations from MPAA executives or contributions by member corporations. Check the list of receivers for the small time and you'll see even there they've pretty much an even spread between parties.

Speaking as someone outside the US looking in, your whole system is fucked. Sadly it's very similar where I am too, only better in matters of degree rather than kind.

I don't buy the "Bribery" angle that's just more anti-obama birther nonsense.

It's true that the Democratic party received about $20k from Falcone in 2010. But the Republican Party received nearly $50k in 2008.

If you go through his political contributions he tended to shotgun across party lines. And none of the money in 08 was for Obama. It was almost exclusively for Senatorial candidates and Giuliani and Chris Dodd.
http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/philip-falcone.asp?cycle=08

And yes I do imagine there was some Lightsquared/Obama white house conversations--One of Obama's campaign promises was broadband for all. Lightsquared promised to deliver on that promise for the president. I'm unaware of another company which Lightsquared favoritism would have pushed out of business. By the very nature of their technology it seemed that there *can't* be a competitor since they themselves don't work. ;)

Yeah but that was 2010.

It's true that the Democratic party received about $20k from Falcone in 2010. But the Republican Party received nearly $50k in 2008.

If you go through his political contributions he tended to shotgun across party lines. And none of the money in 08 was for Obama. It was almost exclusively for Senatorial candidates and Giuliani and Chris Dodd.
http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/philip-falcone.asp?cycle=08

I have no political ties to LightSquared but considering they're trying to blanket the nation in broadband... I'm really hoping they resolve these interference issues as well. Not because I voted for Obama but because I want to see technology succeed. I also want to see white-space succeed which is another initiative the Obama white-house has advocated for. Again, not because of my voting registration but because I agree with their stated agenda of increasing access to highspeed internet.

The story here is that a major publication like the Economist is taking that stance. When it's a bunch of nerds in an online forum whining about it, nothing will ever change. When it hits the mainstream, the politicians have to take notice.

Interestingly enough, the DOJ is sticking its nose into the patent trolling arena. Some press reports indicate that the DOJ is asking explicitly if the patent portfolios are going to be used to go after Android. Others suggest the DOJ already realizes the arms race in acquiring huge patent arsenals to challenge virtually ANY emerging technology is counter productive to the very reason patents were created in the first place, and may be contemplating anti-trust action.

If true, or even if it appears to be true, this sets a new tone in Washington. The current mess is starting to have significant effect on the economy, and the idea that Apple might be blocked from importing their own iPhones due to (alleged) patent violations is probably the trigger for this. Apple has a lot of friends in the current administration.

The best that could be hoped for in the current mess is that the DOJ will put its weight behind forced licensing (in return for a patent, the patent holder must license at reasonable rates; no more arbitrary blocking). The only way that more-or-less obsolete patent libraries from bankrupt companies like Nortel are worth 4 billion dollars is due to the potential for blocking competitors from producing anything. If the patents had any commercial value, Nortel would't be bankrupt.

However, I doubt forced licensing will happen. There appears little legal foundation to impose that.

Further, no administration is likely to change the patent laws any time soon. It would be all out war to attempt that.

The rantings of the Economist aside, in the short term the most likely outcome is anti-trust action to prevent that construction of yet more huge patent libraries.

Anti-Trust litigation is not likely now that Microsoft is donating millions of dollars to politicians. They learned their lesson from before when they didn't donate hardly anything at all to political candidates and got dragged into court for their anti-competitive activities. Soon after that happened the campaign donation checks started getting processed and magically all their problems with the department of justice started to melt away. Even Microsoft can learn.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=d000000115

http://www.campaignmoney.com/microsoft.asp

Oh yeah, because when you think Entertainment Mogul - the first thing that comes to mind is a Republican? Are you on crack agin??

* Doug Morris, CEO Sony Music (Formerly CEO of Universal Music), Democrat: http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/douglas-morris.asp?cycle=08

* Lucian Grainge, CEO Universal Music (Owned by Vivendi), Foreign. Democrat PAC: http://www.opensecrets.org/usearch/index.php?q=Universal+Music&sa=Search&cx=010677907462955562473%3Anlldkv0jvam&cof=FORID%3A11

* Roger Faxon, CEO EMI (Under ownership of Citigroup), Foreign. No open records of contributions

* Lyor Cohen, CEO Warner Music, Democrat: http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/lyor-cohen.asp?cycle=08

(Foreigners can't make political contributions (at least not directly to campaigns), so I looked up PAC funding.)

Oh yeah, because when you think Entertainment Mogul - the first thing that comes to mind is a Republican? Are you on crack agin??

* Doug Morris, CEO Sony Music (Formerly CEO of Universal Music), Democrat: http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/douglas-morris.asp?cycle=08

* Lucian Grainge, CEO Universal Music (Owned by Vivendi), Foreign. Democrat PAC: http://www.opensecrets.org/usearch/index.php?q=Universal+Music&sa=Search&cx=010677907462955562473%3Anlldkv0jvam&cof=FORID%3A11

* Roger Faxon, CEO EMI (Under ownership of Citigroup), Foreign. No open records of contributions

* Lyor Cohen, CEO Warner Music, Democrat: http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/lyor-cohen.asp?cycle=08

(Foreigners can't make political contributions (at least not directly to campaigns), so I looked up PAC funding.)

Looking at his campaign contributions in the 2008 cycle his largest single contribution is to the "NATIONAL REPUBLICAN SENATORIAL COMMITTEE - Republican" ($7500).

On this evidence it looks like he just a typical business executive player, who buys influence on both sides. Not terribly "staunch".

Murdoch on the other hand gives far more heavily (his million dollar payoff to the RNC makes Roberts out to be a political piker) and only to the Republicans.

Adam Kirsch reviews Anne C. Heller's new Ayn Rand biography in this weekend's Book Review. His piece offers this nugget about John Galt's long radio address in the novel Atlas Shrugged: A Random House editor told Rand that "if she gave up 7 cents per copy in royalties, she could have the extra paper needed to print Galt's oration."

Kirsch calls the agreement a "sign of the great contradiction that haunts her writing," observing that "giving up her royalties to preserve her vision is something that no genuine capitalist . . . would have done."

But Rand's decision to exchange money -- a portion of her royalties -- for extra paper is capitalism at work. Rand bought something that had financial value to her: the ability to disseminate her idea in the form she desired.

Without such an elegant capitalist mechanism through which to make this trade, the alternative solution would have been messy and unsatisfying. Rand would have had to give up part of Galt's speech or try to find a new publisher.

Here we have a controversial figure, Ayn Rand, who lived a life full of contradiction and hypocrisy and the best that the author of the book review in the post above could come up with was an incredibly strained story about her forgoing a bit of royalty payments for something of monetary value. Controversial? Come on. It should embarrass the NYT to have hired such an idiot.

Also, given that the above "grass roots" advertising probably came from Random House (publisher of the Ayn Rand book), maybe we should stop buying their books for a little while.

Finally, to complete this little Slashdot drama/troll, let's review (courtesy of Google) Anne Heller's 2008 campaign contributions for 2008: $500 to MoveOn.org, almost $5,000 to two Obama campaign funds (there are three other Anne Heller's contributing to those funds), and $200 to the Democrat Party. I wonder why she felt the need to contribute so much (about five times as much as the maximum in any previous year) while writing a book about Ayn Rand who would have abhorred any of the destinations for the contributions that Heller made. I guess that settles the question of whether there was any BIAS in Heller's biography.

Examples of Exxon's animosity towards green energy, and items outlining their profit motivation:
1. Exxon records huge profits this year amidst recession: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/30/AR2009013003744.html
Why not help us out and lower oil prices? Or show interest in alternative energy besides publicity stunts?

2. Exxon's own website: http://www.exxon.com/USA-English/Lubes/Products_Services/Products_Services_Collection.asp
Not a single service regarding 'green energy'. And this company make billions, but where are the alternative energy options? They don't care. They have the monopoly among many others in the OPEC conglomerate.

3. "In this class action, the class representatives proved that Exxon failed to provide the agreed reduction in wholesale prices...":
http://www.exxondealerclassaction.com/faq.php3

4. Exxon buys out global-warming, green energy think tank, denies global worming: http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/02/news/companies/exxon_science/index.htm

5. Exxon flips on global warming because the rockafeller tell them they will lose money: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/28/climatechange.fossilfuels

6. Exxon contaminates water amidst its own scientist suggestions otherwise: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125598438080394827.html?ru=yahoo&mod=yahoo_hs

7. Oil Congress: http://www.exxposeexxon.com/ExxonMobil_politics.html

8. Overall campaign contributions: http://www.campaignmoney.com/exxon_mobil.asp

7. I know correlation is not causation, but consider the following: Exxon is the largest publicly traded oil company: finance.yahoo.com
They even state that on their own website. They have flip-flopped on global warming to please politicians, so they can please their constituency. They have donated money to people who have money in their company. Lets see, largest traded oil company, has Washington in it's back pocket, they protect their financial interest over anything else.

http://www.campaignmoney.com/microsoft.asp
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=d000000115
http://blog.seattlepi.com/print.asp?entryID=136352 (this one only shows employee contributions, but it compares )

Microsoft contributes more to the Democrats than they do to the Republicans. Last year, it was nearly 3:1. OpenSecrets does show there was a time when Microsoft donated more to the Republicans, but there was never a time when Microsoft was both a top Republican contributor and gave very little money to the Democrats.

When I see this argument, I presume the mindset that produces it must be something along the lines of:

A. Microsoft is evil
B. Republicans are evil
_______________________________
C. Therefore, Microsoft is Republican

Should we contact Committee member Mark Warner, whose Friends of Mark Warner PAC receives contributions from Mr. Chopra? :-)

Rather than citing privacy, WCBVTV is running the story under the headline 'City's Move To Nix Security Cams May Cost Thousands.'

If you watch the news, any news, most of the folks in "journalism" are liberal and want bigger, more intrusive government. They can play the stupid games claiming they're "main stream" but it is BS and we all know it. The government is the best path, because the masses are stupid and can't be trusted. So why would you expect them to tilt their headline any other way? Removing the cameras is an anti-government/less-government move. Liberal* is not the same as Libertarian, which is what I think the submitter is expecting from the dinosaur media.

While I think /. tends to lean left from the way the summaries are spun to the multiple negative responses I got from a comment a couple of weeks ago saying I didn't want federal gov't to run healthcare - I still get the impression that a lot us in the /. crowd are probably as much libertarian as anything else.

-Horatio

* Liberal, Progressive, Modern, or whatever they're calling themselves these days. I can't keep up.

Uh, you don't have to hack any websites to get information about political donors. It'a all public knowledge. The candidates are required by law to report that kind of stuff. This was required even before McCain-Feingold fucked up our political system even further with their Campaign Finance Reform Bill. If they don't file these reports, or file them late, they have to pay significant fines.

Go to the Federal Election Commission's website and review all the campaign finance reports they've filed regularly since they declared their candidacy. For an easier view of the data, you can also go to http://www.campaignmoney.com/ and search on your own zip code to see how much money all your neighbors contributed to the last campaign.

No hacking required.

Actually, they don't. Here are Bill Gates' political contributions: http://www.campaignmoney.com/biography/bill_gates.asp 35% to democrats, 32% to republicans, rest to independents. Check your facts.

Here ya go:

Howard Berman's campaign contributors in 2006.

There will be no real reform of the patent systems as long as congress is bought and paid for by campaign contributions.

And real reform means eliminating all software patents. And that will never happen as long as:

Microsoft Campaign Contributions: $8,907,025 (1999 - Present)

And I'm sure there are many other companies in the industry that throw dollars at congress. Source

I thought of that too, so I looked up his contributors at http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/campaigns/m arc_r_pacheco.asp?cycle=02, but I didn't see Microsoft or its employees as contributors. However, Information Week has an interesting article at http://www.informationweek.com/shared/printableArt icle.jhtml?articleID=172900251 that states that Microsoft gained support of both State Senator Marc Pacheco and Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin. It doesn't state how it gained their support.
I suspect that these two are pandering to a special interest group (in this case, the disabled) to gain votes in upcoming elections. Of course, pandering to Microsoft may benefit them too.

I did find cursory info about Colvin:

http://listings.allpages.com/mi-0010935235-commerc e-township.html

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/product-compint-00 01259831-page.html

Seems like a company that does web design for someone else should have a webpage of their own, right?

Oh, and they gave $500 http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributio ns/michigan_commerce_township_48382.asp?cycle=00

The more I look into the Feeney/Curtis story the more I believe it.

There are clear links between YEI and Feeney. The president and the CEO of YEI donated over $5,000 to Feeney's 2004 campaign:

http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/campaigns/t om_feeney.asp

Feeney also served as general counsel and lobbyist for YEI:

http://www.mystolennation.com/modules.php?name=New s&new_topic=18

The most interesting thing is that Bev Harris outlines a back door in the GEMS tabulator that is very similar to what Curtis created a demo for:

http://www.ejfi.org/Voting/Voting-30.htm

She even specifies a date, October 13, 2000, as to when this back door was first implemented in the code. This is very shortly after the time that Curtis says his company was approached by Feeney.

I find it strange that Harris would discount this story as disinformation after these pieces line up like this....

Maybe Walt Brown should sue John John for their monopoly on socialism. He should also attempt to reopen the anti-trust case against Microsoft for funding the Dems in their pursuit of socialism.

Sorry Walt, you're way off base. The title "Democrat" is used because they know if they outright used the word "Socialist" they would be laughed out of the government. Wait.. That's already happening.

Thanks. The reference works fine, as long as you account for the fact that /. adds a space to long references. Try this one, which is what I typed (without the interpolated space due to /code). There are a huge number of trolls in any political discussion, of every persuasion. I find it interesting, though, that I was accused of lying by someone who obviously didn't read my post all the way through.

Yeah, you tried real hard there, buddy. First, you did read the part of my post where I pointed out that the name of the company is mis-spelled in the database - every time. Second, you didn't notice that /. added a space to the link, did you? So you say I lie? No, I don't lie - you just don't READ!!!

Can't moderate this discussion because of my own comments. Please mod parent down, he can't have read his parent post or he's just a troll. See the other reply to my parents post, mod it up.
The "reference" (the url) of grandparent doesn't work, probably it's cut, but this one works:
http://www.campaignmoney.com/finance.asp?type=io&c %20ycle=04&criteria=OMEGA+TECNOLOGIES+INCORPORATED %2F

Huh?

30 seconds of Googling got me this page.

Looks like a lot of businessmen, he supports both Republican and Democrat candidates as he likes 'em.

Or he hedges his bets.

According to this site, he's contributed $2k to Bush/Cheney and...um...nothing to Kerry/whomever.

So, what was your point, exactly?